What if? East Vs West 1945

Then again, you may want to take a bit closer look at the numbers: what were the Russian "tactical" aircraft? What where the Allied "tactical" aircraft? How may IL-2s equal one A-26? Or does 1 IL-2 equal a Typhoon?
American and British artillery control and command were at least on generation if not two ahead of the Russian artillery command and control. Artillery tubes are easy to count. Shells per tube per day are a lot harder to figure. Flexibility of fire plans and forward observer control can multiply the effect of smaller numbers of artillery as long as there is enough ammo. The Germans at times were limited to around 30 shells per day per tube. That amount of ammo could be fired off in under 1/2 hour and a rather relaxed rate of fire.

While the allies might not be able to win a "quick victory" the other side of the question is could the Russians win a "quick victory" as their long term supply situation was much more in question.

@ RCAFson

I havent't read so much bollocks in a long time.

The whole Wehrmacht hadn't 214 Divisions the whole WWII!

The german Wehrmacht attacked the UDSSR with 160. Divisions at June 1941 and it is a fact from lost lists and countless historians that the East Heer (Wehrmacht) didn't reached this strenghts ever again. After the Winter Battles 1941 the Heeresgruppe Mitte was only the half strenght of the June 1941 and wasn't ever realy refreshed the whole war.

To the estimation of serious historians the fighting power of the Wehrmacht was divided 50 to 50 after Troop movements of the Wehrmacht at or near after operation overloard and before operation Bagration.

There were a little more Divisions at the East Front but the most elite Divisions (mot. Infantrie and PzDiv plus SS Div.) were at the Westfront.
The Westfront is France and Italy and also there were Troops of the Wehrmacht at Yugoslawia.

Your picture of the "mighty" Red Army at 1944-1945 is to me realy absurd, because most of this strenghts comes from Land Lease and the weakness of the Wehrmacht but not from the Red Army itself and the economy of the UDSSR.
And this is only about the Army, the VVS is a whole other issue and much much weaker then the Red Army without Land Lease and against a strong enemy.

Edit: To add something important, the LW strenghts was someting to 80 % (west) to 20 %(east) since midd to end 1943.

Jenisch said:

Ah, yes, the old story that the Soviets consumed almost everything from the Germans. The Germans had a good part against of their LAND forces against the Russians, but I wouldn't underestimate what was left behind, like the 800,000 in Norway and in the Balkans - that was all for the Western Allies. Also, the LW was shot out of the sky in Tunisia, Sicilly, Italy, France, and eventually Germany. There was not such a thing of the Russians also "destroying" the LW.



It's on you, you that are claiming the Russians would overcome the Allied ground and air forces. Prove the Russians would not allow their lines of trucks being straffed by Allied fighter-bombers, prove they would not have their railway system attacked by strategic bombers, prove they would not enter in attrition with the USAAF and the RAF, and prove they could overcome the Anglo-American air power.

I think the Allies would unlikely advance to Russia, but I also doubt the Russians would dominate the scene easily like you write.

Click to expand...

Tactical airpower was not nearly as efficient as you make it out to be. The Allies bombed and straffed the hell out of the French rail system and German mech transport and the Germans were still able to move forces around France, prior, during and after the invasion. In Normandy the Allies had complete and undisputed air superiority and it took several months to lever the German Army out it's positions around the beachhead. If the Western Allies had had to face the same forces that the Red Army had to face, they would never have made it onto the beaches, but if we suppose that they did they all the Allied airpower in the world would not have turned the tide in the West's favour. Look at Korea, airpower helped but it could not defeat a numerically superior army, except in the long term, and unlike Korea, the European Red Airforce is actually stronger in tactical airpower than the West.

If the Allied airforces couldn't defeat the (very) much weaker western German Army they sure as hell won't be able to beat the Red Army either. Airpower in WW2 helped but it was no substitute for boots on the ground.

RCAFson said:

Tactical airpower was not nearly as efficient as you make it out to be.

Click to expand...

Perhaphs if you read the books of Christer Bergstrom about the Eastern Front you will change your mind.

DonL said:

@ RCAFson

I havent't read so much bollocks in a long time.

The whole Wehrmacht hadn't 214 Divisions the whole WWII!

The german Wehrmacht attacked the UDSSR with 160. Divisions at June 1941 and it is a fact from lost lists and countless historians that the East Heer (Wehrmacht) didn't reached this strenghts ever again. After the Winter Battles 1941 the Heeresgruppe Mitte was only the half strenght of the June 1941 and wasn't ever realy refreshed the whole war.

To the estimation of serious historians the fighting power of the Wehrmacht was divided 50 to 50 after Troop movements of the Wehrmacht at or near after operation overloard and before operation Bagration.

There were a little more Divisions at the East Front but the most elite Divisions (mot. Infantrie and PzDiv plus SS Div.) were at the Westfront.
The Westfront is France and Italy and also there were Troops of the Wehrmacht at Yugoslawia.

Your picture of the "mighty" Red Army at 1944-1945 is to me realy absurd, because most of this strenghts comes from Land Lease and the weakness of the Wehrmacht but not from the Red Army itself and the economy of the UDSSR.
And this is only about the Army, the VVS is a whole other issue and much much weaker then the Red Army without Land Lease and against a strong enemy.

Edit: To add something important, the LW strenghts was someting to 80 % (west) to 20 %(east) since midd to end 1943.

Click to expand...

Fine show me some numbers and sources for the same.

Air defense of the Reich is not tactical airpower against ground forces.

Losses on the ground:

According to Frank Biess,

German casualties took a sudden jump with the defeat of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad in January 1943, when 180,310 soldiers were killed in one month. Among the 5.3 million Wehrmacht casualties during the Second World War, more than 80 percent died during the last two years of the war. Approximately three-quarters of these losses occurred on the Eastern front (2.7 million) and during the final stages of the war between January and May 1945 (1.2 million).[9]
Jeffrey Herf wrote that:

Whereas German deaths between 1941 and 1943 on the western front had not exceeded 3 percent of the total from all fronts, in 1944 the figure jumped to about 14 percent. Yet even in the months following D-day, about 68.5 percent of all German battlefield deaths occurred on the eastern front, as a Soviet blitzkrieg in response devastated the retreating Wehrmacht.[10]
Wehrmacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

DonL said:

@ RCAFson

I havent't read so much bollocks in a long time.

The whole Wehrmacht hadn't 214 Divisions the whole WWII!

The german Wehrmacht attacked the UDSSR with 160. Divisions at June 1941 and it is a fact from lost lists and countless historians that the East Heer (Wehrmacht) didn't reached this strenghts ever again. After the Winter Battles 1941 the Heeresgruppe Mitte was only the half strenght of the June 1941 and wasn't ever realy refreshed the whole war.

To the estimation of serious historians the fighting power of the Wehrmacht was divided 50 to 50 after Troop movements of the Wehrmacht at or near after operation overloard and before operation Bagration.

There were a little more Divisions at the East Front but the most elite Divisions (mot. Infantrie and PzDiv plus SS Div.) were at the Westfront.
The Westfront is France and Italy and also there were Troops of the Wehrmacht at Yugoslawia.

Your picture of the "mighty" Red Army at 1944-1945 is to me realy absurd, because most of this strenghts comes from Land Lease and the weakness of the Wehrmacht but not from the Red Army itself and the economy of the UDSSR.
And this is only about the Army, the VVS is a whole other issue and much much weaker then the Red Army without Land Lease and against a strong enemy.

Edit: To add something important, the LW strenghts was someting to 80 % (west) to 20 %(east) since midd to end 1943.

Click to expand...

I was already aware of some of part of those informations, good to know them. I always belived the Russian contribution in the war is exaggerated. Now I have confirmation.

DonL said:

@ RCAFson

To the estimation of serious historians the fighting power of the Wehrmacht was divided 50 to 50 after Troop movements of the Wehrmacht at or near after operation overloard and before operation Bagration.

There were a little more Divisions at the East Front but the most elite Divisions (mot. Infantrie and PzDiv plus SS Div.) were at the Westfront.
The Westfront is France and Italy and also there were Troops of the Wehrmacht at Yugoslawia.

Click to expand...

Complete crap. There were 58 Nazi divisions in France and about 22 in Italy on July 1 1944 with about 1 million men in France (and about 400,000 in Italy) versus 3.37 million German and Axis troops on the Eastern front. Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, p283 and p304

Jenisch said:

I was already aware of some of part of those informations, good to know them. I always belived the Russian contribution in the war is exaggerated. Now I have confirmation.

Click to expand...

Sigh. I always try to avoid discussing anything to do with the USSR, because the right wingnuts cannot have a rational discussion about anything to do with it. So without further ado, I bow out of this discussion.

Lets see...

You start a discussion, but only want to hear what you want to hear. People have a different opinion on the matter, which is not allowed. So, then you run off and pout like a kid whose parent would not buy them a new toy.

Basically you want to state your opinion, and have everyone say how great it is.

Why even join a discussion group?

Fine show me some numbers and sources for the same.

Click to expand...

And were is your source for 214 german Divisions at 1944 at the east front except wiki?

To give you an example.

The strenghts of the Heeresgruppe Mitte at 15. June 1944 was 32 Divisions.
Involved at Bagration were something of 38 Divisions, because the 2. german Army get involved.

3. Panzerarmee

IX. Armeekorps: 252. Infanterie-Division, Korpsabteilung D
LIII. Armeekorps: 246. Infanterie-Division, 206. Infanterie-Division, 4. Luftwaffen-Felddivision, 6. Luftwaffen-Felddivision
VI. Armeekorps: 197. Infanterie-Division, 299. Infanterie-Division, 256. Infanterie-Division, als Reserve 95. Infanterie-Division

4. Armee

XXVII. Armeekorps: 78. Infanterie-Division, 25. Panzergrenadier-Division, 260. Infanterie-Division, 14. Infanterie-Division (mot.)
XXXIX. Armeekorps: 110. Infanterie-Division, 337. Infanterie-Division, 12. Infanterie-Division, als Reserve: Panzergrenadier-Division Feldherrnhalle
XII. Armeekorps: 18. Panzergrenadier-Division, 267. Infanterie-Division, 57. Infanterie-Division

9. Armee

XXXV. Armeekorps: 134. Infanterie-Division, 45. Infanterie-Division, 296. Infanterie-Division, 6. Infanterie-Division, 383. Infanterie-Division,
XXXI. Panzerkorps: 36. Infanterie-Division (mot.), 35. Infanterie-Division, 129. Infanterie-Division
LV. Armeekorps: 292. Infanterie-Division, 102. Infanterie-Division[9]

With the mighty power of 5 mot. Inf. Divisions (Panz. Gren.D) and no single Panzer Division.
No Division of the whole Heeresgruppe Mitte had a nominal strenghts over 60% at this time and operation Bagration.
So in reality something about 20 Divisions!

Rolf Hinze: Der Zusammenbruch der Heeresgruppe Mitte im Osten 1944.

And I'm not here to make your homework, because you are claimimg that only a little fraction of the Wehrmacht was fighting at the West at June/ July 1944! Please show us some sources but please no Wiki bollocks!

Also most of the Wehrmacht Divisions which were fighting the West (except Italy) were at a nominal strenghts of 100%.

Edit:

Complete crap. There were 58 Nazi divisions in France and about 22 in Italy on July 1 1944 with about 1 million men in France (and about 400,000 in Italy) versus 3.37 million German and Axis troops on the Eastern front. Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, p283 and p304

Click to expand...

How many Ungarian, Romanian and Finish Troops?
How many Russian Hiwis?
How many german Sicherungsdivisions, which were hardly a real fighting Division?

RCAFson said:

Tactical airpower was not nearly as efficient as you make it out to be. The Allies bombed and straffed the hell out of the French rail system and German mech transport and the Germans were still able to move forces around France, prior, during and after the invasion. In Normandy the Allies had complete and undisputed air superiority and it took several months to lever the German Army out it's positions around the beachhead. If the Western Allies had had to face the same forces that the Red Army had to face, they would never have made it onto the beaches, but if we suppose that they did they all the Allied airpower in the world would not have turned the tide in the West's favour. Look at Korea, airpower helped but it could not defeat a numerically superior army, except in the long term, and unlike Korea, the European Red Airforce is actually stronger in tactical airpower than the West.
If the Allied airforces couldn't defeat the (very) much weaker western German Army they sure as hell won't be able to beat the Red Army either. Airpower in WW2 helped but it was no substitute for boots on the ground.

Click to expand...

This is not really accurate. The pre-invasion bombing did severely cramp German logistics as well as imposing substantial losses of both personnel and materials. After a cross channel invasion it was necessary to build logistic supply lines and gain/repair harbors. The going was slow through the difficult hedgerow country, but by the middle of August, and with the aid of heavy bombers in a tactical role, there was a breakout with the Falaise encirclement. Sixty thousand German troops were lost –many to air attack. Once the established German defenses were breached, the Allies rolled on to Paris and beyond.

Perhaps the Bulge fighting best illustrates the value of tactical air support in that due to weather there was none initially. But when the weather cleared and German logistics failed, the game was over.

When it became clear that Germany was defeated, Roosevelt and Truman supported Eisenhower in the decision to let the Soviets handle the meat grinder final push to Berlin. If Patton had his way, the US would have been doing this tough fighting rather than hanging out on the Elbe. He would have succeeded at least as well as the Soviets, helped immensely by the German actually fleeing to surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets.

Finally, Korea is more a sacrificial exercise than a test of military might. Initially, the American forces were ineffective in that they had been disbanded after their WWII victory. Once somewhat ramped up, the North was beaten before China intervened. While the wherewithal was available to handle China, it wasn't brought to bear for fear of a war like we're discussing in theory.

It's just not reliable to extrapolate from the specific to the general; particularly when the specific is driven by unique circumstances as discussed above.

RCAFson said:

Sigh. I always try to avoid discussing anything to do with the USSR, because the right wingnuts cannot have a rational discussion about anything to do with it. So without further ado, I bow out of this discussion.

Click to expand...

If you are certain of your claims, then show us everything we want.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Lets see...

You start a discussion, but only want to hear what you want to hear. People have a different opinion on the matter, which is not allowed. So, then you run off and pout like a kid whose parent would not buy them a new toy.

Basically you want to state your opinion, and have everyone say how great it is.

Why even join a discussion group?

Click to expand...

I didn't start the discussion. The problem is that it's hard to discuss something rationally, when even the most basic facts about WW2, which I learned when I was in elementary school about 50 years ago, are now being disputed. It's sort of like trying to discuss spaceflight history with someone who believes that NASA faked the moon landings...there's just no future in it.

I'm truly sorry if it seems like I'm running away after having my say.

Your right Ascent started it, my apologies.

One could argue why didn't Stalin invade?

Certainly not out of goodness of his heart. I wonder if it crossed his mind?

I dont think either side was really in a position to continue a lengthy war. Both sides were prenty spent.

A whole lot of this scenario depends on who are the aggressors and what level of preparations are involved. A month or two of operational preparations, for either side, could mean the world of difference.

On the Western Allies side, I believe they'd need six to eight weeks to get bomber bases properly operational in Germany. Otherwise, the heavy bombers simply don't have the range to project power significantly past the Oder river line and the Allies have to rely on their heavily outnumbered tactical air forces.

There is a real difference between sending the heavy bombers in from the UK to bomb Normandy and sending them in from the UK to bomb enemy crossing points on the Elbe, or support bridging positions across the Havel or Oder.

With the bomber bases in place, the picture is quite different, but I still don't think things are going to be remotely as easy for the Western Allies as some people here believe.

On the Soviet side, if they've had a couple of months to prepare, one of the big dangers would be their use of operational manoeuvre groups held in reserve. With their mass of manpower and the much reduce frontage of N/W Europe compared to Russia/Poland they can afford to probe in strength and then exploit heavily with armour when a weakness is found.

For all the previous comparisons to Korea in terms of equipment/combat standards made in the thread, I really don't see the two scenarios as comparable. The standards of the forces involved in Korea was much different to the end of WW2.

Firstly, while the morale and training of Soviet ground forces may not have been as high as in the West, their tank, artillery, engineer and air force training standards were much higher than that of their general infantry. The main problem was their junior officer and senior non-commissioned officer infantry ranks were heavily depleted, with subsequent 'on the ground' leadership problems.

Secondly, the main tanks of the two forces – the T-34/85 and the M4A2/3 with 76 mm – were fairly well matched. While some argue that the M26 was coming into service and that would swing the balance, the Soviet's had their entire menagerie of 'animal tamers' – the various ISU/JSU tank destroyers – as well the IS-2 and the T-44.

There's an old joke from the Cold War. Two Soviet generals are watching the victory parade through Paris. One turns to the other and says "So, who won the air war?"

Where in Germany would these air bases be located?

There were many intact airbases left in Germany in 1945.

The Airbase I worked at was a former Luftwaffe field, and it was intact and operational in 1945. The US started using it in in May 1945. Erich was kind enough to show me pics with P-51s. Many of the buildings are still standing today.

double post